
ADDRESS 



Hon. Philander Chase Knox 



AT A MASS MEETING 



HELD UNDER THE AUSPICES OF 



THE UNION LEAGUE 



At The Academy of Music, Philadelphia 



OCTOBER 20, 1908 




(lass X* 

Hook 



MSI. 



PRESENTED BY 



«5 



ADDRESS 



Hon. Philander Chase Knox 



AT A MASS MEETING 



HELD UNDER THE AUSPICES OF 



THE UNION LEAGUE 



AT THE ACADEMY OF MUSIC, PHILADELPHIA 



OCTOBER 20, 1908 






^\*£ 



Autfc 
10 Mr/OS 



My Fellow Citizens: 

The necessity for the people of the 
United States to be alert and to appreciate 
the full import of what they are about to 
do in the selection of a chief and vice- 
chief magistrate, members of the House of 
Representatives and, through their State 
elections, members of the United States 
Senate, was never greater than in this^ year 
1 908, when not only a change in per- 
sonnel is proposed, but changes involving 
such departures from tried, tested, and 
approved policies of government as to 
reach to the very root of our system and 
to be in effect revolutionary. 

One takes an extremely superficial view 
of the nature of the pending campaign 



who contends that the sole issue involved 
is the choice between the characters and 
characteristics of the two gentlemen who 
respectively hold the nomination of the 
Republican and Democratic parties. If 
nothing more than this were involved, it 
would be an easy task for the conscientious 
and intelligent American voter to decide 
between the candidacy of Mr. Taft, an 
experienced and wise administrator of pub- 
lic affairs, who is backed by a record of 
public achievement and stern repression of 
his own apparent interests for the public 
good; and the candidacy of Mr. Bryan, 
who presents a career of vacillating and 
untenable radicalism conjoined with an 
entire willingness to advance his own polit- 
ical fortunes regardless of the public good 
and of the effect upon the institutions of 
his country of the Quixotic vagaries he 
affects. 

4 



It would be easy, I repeat, to make 
the choice and determine the duty if that 
were the only issue involved. But wholly 
aside from the personality of the candi- 
dates and assuming them to be of equal 
probity and ability; wholly forgetting the 
asperities of party controversy and strug- 
gle for place; entirely ignoring the per- 
sonal factors in the national problem and 
approaching its solution with an eye sin- 
gle to our country's greatest good, the 
choice of right-minded men is just as easy 
and the duty is just as clear now as 
it was in 1 860, when the Republican 
Lincoln was supported upon a platform 
which declared the threats of secession 
could only be regarded as lf an avowal of 
contemplated treason which it is the 
imperative duty of an indignant people 
sternly to rebuke and forever silence;" as 
it was in 1 864 when the same immortal 

5 



Republican was again sustained against the 
Democratic declaration that the war to 
suppress rebellion was a failure; as it was 
in 1868 and in 1872 when upon Grant, 
the great and silent soldier, the reward of 
duty well done was fitly conferred; as it 
was in 1 896 and again in 1 900 when 
the people's enthusiastic choice was the 
beloved McKinley, than whom no purer, 
no abler man ever fully met the call to 
high duty ; and as it was in 1 904, when, 
by the largest popular vote and plurality, 
Theodore Roosevelt was elected President 
of the United States and the policies 
which he had advocated and the work 
he had accomplished were popularly in- 
dorsed. 

I have stated that the choice is as 
easy and the duty is as clear now as it 
was at the critical and important periods 
in our history I have named. I think this 

' 6 



statement is not an exaggerated one and I 
believe that you will agree with me, if 
you will seriously consider the real nature 
and far-reaching consequences of some of 
the issues now involved, that no more stag- 
gering blow could be dealt the cause of 
good government than to repudiate the 
work of the Republican Party by the re- 
jection of its pre-eminently qualified choice 
for the continuance of the constructive poli- 
cies to which the party has committed itself 
and, by the acceptance of the opposing can- 
didate, to approve the political and eco- 
nomic theories he advances. 

No country in modern times at an im- 
portant period in its history has been 
so nearly dominated and- controlled by a 
political party as the United States has been 
by the Republican Party during the last 
half century. Within that period it has 
met the demands of humanity and the 

7 



- 



responsibilities of legislation and administra- 
tion unassisted and unaffected for the most 
of the time, as a dominant party often is, 
by any cohesive, consistent and intelligent 
opposition. The party has been practi- 
cally free to deal with the problems of 
these years as its conscience, its patriotism 
and its intelligence guided it, and I be- 
lieve it is true that during no similar 
period in the history of any country has 
more been accomplished to effect the real 
purposes of human government than stands 
to the credit of the Republican Party in 
Nation and State, and that at no period 
has its service to the people been more 
conspicuous for the people's good than 
during the last ten years. 

Within these years and under Repub- 
lican control we have added to our glory as 
a nation by our assumption and creditable 
discharge of wider international obligations 



and by our generous humanity and charity 
towards the downtrodden, helpless and 
unfortunate people of other lands. No finer 
page has appeared in the annals of Nations 
than the one recording our conduct towards 
Cuba, China and the Philippines. Within 
these years we have responded quickly, 
intelligently and safely to the demands of 
the new century for more justice, more 
tolerance, more equity and equality of 
opportunity among men. 

Within these years, under the inspiring 
leadership of one who so fully respected 
and appreciated a sound national tradition 
that he voluntarily and cheerfully rejected 
a certain opportunity to continue his great 
constructive labors, the value of American 
citizenship has been enhanced, the privilege 
of American opportunity has been equal- 
ized and the unfair and oppressive methods 
that marred the splendid development of 

9 



American prosperity have been corrected. 
These results were attained through sound 
legislation, enlightened judicial decision and, 
where the evils lay beyond the corrective 
functions of government, by relentless ex- 
posure and stirring appeal to the ethical 
sense of the world. 

Within these years, as the result of 
Republican statesmanship and unrelenting 
insistence, it has been finally and forever 
settled that through no human device can 
the plenary control of Congress in respect 
to the regulation of commerce between the 
States be evaded ; and basing further 
advance upon this victory, the party moved 
on to the accomplishment of an effective 
system of railroad regulation having for its 
cornerstone the equitable proposition that 
upon the highways of commerce all men 
should be equal and should be afforded 

equality of opportunity upon equal and 

10 



reasonable terms; and including within its 
detail provision that all articles of interstate 
commerce and all persons and instrumen- 
talities connected with their movement shall 
be under Federal control from the moment 
of time they are separated from the body 
of the property of the State of consign- 
ment until they shall reach their destina- 
tion in another State and become mingled 
with and a part of the body of the prop- 
erty of such State. 

Within these years it became possible, 
under the broad interpretation of the Fed- 
eral power claimed by the Republican 
Party and sustained by the courts, to do 
much for that great and important body 
of our citizenship, the employees of the 
railroads ; whereupon the safety appliance 
law, having for its purpose the protection 
of lives and limbs of railroad workmen, 
was enacted. This law in both its origi- 



11 



k 



nal and extended form was a Republican 
measure, and its constitutionality was sus- 
tained by the Supreme Court through the 
intervention by a Republican Attorney- 
General to assist a brakeman in his claim 
for damages. 

This decision made easy the steps 
subsequently taken to further ameliorate 
the condition of railroad labor by limiting 
the hours within which men could be con- 
secutively employed and by the law ex- 
tending the liability of railroads and other 
carriers to cases not theretofore covered by 
any law an injured workmen could invoke. 

I might continue, with almost infinite de- 
tail, the recital of the splendid accomplish- 
ments of the party in the furtherance of 
enlightened and progressive domestic and 
foreign policies were it necessary to do so; 
but it is not, as the record is a familiar 
book whose pages disclose a broad humanity 

12 



and sound statesmanship in its handling of 
the profound problems of government from 
the day of the party's first stand for human 
freedom to its last work of ameliorating, 
improving and equalizing human conditions. 

To the judgment and courage of the 
Republican Party, moving on undisturbed 
by Democratic help or hindrance, are due 
most that has been proposed and all that has 
been accomplished in the splendid advance 
in American conditions; achieved without 
perilous domestic disturbance or diplomatic 
entanglements, and in such a way as to 
preserve our honor and keep the peace 
with the world. 

Brilliant and inspiring as the party's 
history reads, it does not rest its confident 
appeal for approval and support upon its 
record. We cite its good deeds well per- 
formed as an evidence of its ability and 
willingness to keep its promises for the 

13 



1 



future. If continued in power it will meet 
the demands of the present and the future 
as a party of progress, experience and con- 
science should, unaffected by wild passions 
and untenable theories. It will, as in the 
past, make its utmost endeavor to preserve 
and maintain in all their strength, inde- 
pendence and glory, the institutions of gov- 
ernment as ordained and established by 
the people of the United States. It will 
continue to build and expand upon the 
immutable foundation of human equality 
without which no government can endure, 
no party exist. 

The party will hold to Lincoln's rule 
that "the highest function of statesmanship 
is by degrees to accommodate the conduct 
of communities to ethical laws and to sub- 
ordinate the conflicting self-interests of the 
day to higher and more permanent con- 
cerns," remembering that "it is on 

14 



understanding and not on the sentiment of 
a nation that all safe legislation must 
be based; for the impracticable, however 
theoretically enticing, is always politically 
unwise, sound statesmanship being the ap- 
plication of that prudence to the public 
business which is the safest guide in that 
of private men." 

I have endeavored thus far to indicate 
in general terms some of the things accom- 
plished by the Republican Party in the 
past which you are asked to reject by 
withholding approval of the present Re- 
publican administration of the govern- 
ment. 

I say you are asked to reject the work 
of the party because no exception can be 
taken to the personality of our candidates. 
They represent poise, dignity, moderation, 
ability and experience in all the intricacies 
of our complex government. 

15 



A 



If you reject them, what are you asked 
to accept and affirmatively approve? In 
lieu of Mr. Taft and his sound record of 
normality, frankness and great public use- 
fulness you are asked to accept Mr. Bryan 
with his vagaries, his inexperience and his 
disingenuous efforts to fool the American 
people with phrases. 

Primarily you are seriously asked to 
believe that the all-important question to 
be settled in this campaign is "Shall the 
people rule?" A question that was settled 
through misery and starvation at Valley 
Forge, through glorious victory at York- 
town, and confirmed upon the bloody field 
of Gettysburg. 

No pretense could be less candid or more 
demagogic than the assertion that such an 
issue is in this campaign. It is intended to 
mislead the shallow thinker and to be made 
plausible through vociferation and invective. 



16 



Although the absurdity of this specious 
and pretentious claim that we are now to 
decide if the people shall rule has been 
most thoroughly exposed by Mr. Taft and 
others, I beg to add a word to indicate 
how it addresses itself to my judgment. 

Let us do Mr. Bryan no injustice. Let 
us first ascertain if this alleged issue is 
with him a rhetorical flourish or advanced 
as a matter of substance. 

In his speech of acceptance Mr. Bryan 
says the "overshadowing issue which mani- 
fests itself in all the questions now under 
discussion is, Shall the people rule." This, 
as he has frequently reiterated since, is the 
dominating issue of this campaign. Now 
what can this possibly mean? Shall the 
people rule? This is a curious question to 
ask anywhere in the civilized world in the 
twentieth century and an especially curious 
one to ask here in this year of the 

17 



independence of the United States of 
America. 

Who are the people to whom he refers 
and what is their relation to our govern- 
ment and its administration? Obviously 
by the people of a representative govern- 
ment we mean a majority of the people. 
It was the representatives of a majority of 
the people who framed the Constitution 
and proclaimed the birth of this nation in 
these noble words, "We the people of the 
United States, in order to form a more 
perfect Union, establish justice, insure do- 
mestic tranquility, provide for the common 
defense, promote the general welfare and 
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves 
and our posterity do ordain and establish 
this Constitution of the United States of 
America." 

I cannot more accurately describe the 
relation the people thus established be- 

18 



tween themselves and their government 
than in Mr. Bryan's own words quoted 
from the speech to which I have referred. 
The people, he says, "think for themselves 
and select officials to carry out their 
wishes. The voters are the sovereigns, the 
officials are the servants employed for a 
fixed time and at a stated salary to do 
what the sovereigns want done and to do 
it in the way the sovereigns want it 
done." 

This is admirably and accurately stated, 
there is no difficulty in understanding it 
and there is no doubt about it. Mr. 
Bryan then proceeds to tell us what it is 
the people demand. What it is they must 
have. Here he substitutes himself for the 
people. Here he forgets his own words 
that "the people think for themselves and 
select officials to carry out their wishes"; 
forgets the history of his own political 

19 






career; forgets that every time he has 
offered himself and his complainings to the 
people they have rejected them both and 
forgets that at the last opportunity the 
people had to express their wishes as 
to national policies they approved the 
Republican administration of the govern- 
ment under President Roosevelt, the con- 
tinuance of which under Mr. Taft is the 
real issue of this campaign, by a plurality 
of two and one-half million votes. 

I think that Mr. Bryan may rest en- 
tirely satisfied that the people will continue 
to rule in the future as they have in the 
past. I believe they understand what is 
for their own good and I believe moreover 
that there is no proposition of economics or 
politics fairly stated and not purposely con- 
fused but will receive a sounder solution at 
the polls than in any convention or gather- 
ing of politicians. No better illustration of 

20 



this can be given than to refer to 1 896 
and the disposition made at the polls of 
the preposterous silver proposition Mr. Bryan 
tried to force on the country and upon which 
all sorts of trimming was done by all sorts 
of statesmen before it got up to the 
people. 

The people will only cease to rule in 
the true sense and according to their own 
sober judgment when they are persuaded 
that the worst is the better part, a feat 
said to be within the sophist's power but 
fortunately never yet accomplished with the 
majority of the American people. 

Having thus referred to what Mr. 
Bryan characterizes as the paramount issue 
of the campaign and having seen what a 
hollow sham it is, let us next consider his 
views upon certain political and economic 
policies he advocates and to which he 
pins his political chances and which you 



21 



are asked to accept and approve as against 
the Republican record. 

Mr. Bryan's conception that the main 
issue is, "Shall the people rule," is as we 
have seen a harmless delusion and not 
likely to impress anyone seriously. 

His fixed views, however, upon specific 
national policies is a matter of grave con- 
cern and require sober consideration. 

Colonel Henry Watterson, now ardently 
supporting Mr. Bryan's candidacy, said of 
him in 1896: — 

"Men like Bryan are agitators, 

rabblerousers and spellbinders; but no 

man would trust them at the head of 

an ordinary business to manage its 

executive affairs, much less at the 

head of a great nation. To elect 

him would mean repudiation, anarchy* 

and national and social ruin." " The 

22 



fierce light that beats upon a presi- 
dential candidate is bringing out the 
weaknesses and absurdities of Mr. 
Bryan's public career with a ven- 
geance. No matter under what guise 
he presents his views on government 
policies, the same communistic princi- 
ples are always apparent." 

These are strong words from a strong 
man. They are words I would not care 
to use unless fully justified by facts. It is 
true they were spoken in 1 896. Were 
they true then ? Upon what did Mr. 
Watterson predicate them? Are they true 
now ? Does Mr. Bryan entertain the same 
views on governmental policies as he then 
entertained and has he added to his stock 
of "weaknesses and absurdities"? These 
questions go to the heart of the pending 
controversy and I will not undertake to 

23 



,, 



answer them by any deductions of my 
own but with the words of his own 
mouth and from the pens of those who 
support him. 

As to whether we are dealing with 
the same Mr. Bryan now, in his attitude 
towards governmental policies, let me first 
quote his language used on the 1 2th of 
July, 1 906, in an address in the city of 
London. He then and there said : — 

"I notice that I am now described 
by some as a conservative. In one 
sense I always have been a conserva- 
tive. The Democratic policies are 
conservative in that they embody old 
principles applied to new conditions. 

"If, however, by the word con- 
servative they mean that I have 
changed my positions on any public 
question or moderated my opposition 

24 



to corporate aggrandizement they have 
a surprise waiting for them. I am 
more radical than I was in 1 896 and 
have nothing to withdraw on econ- 
omic questions which have been un- 



der discussion, 



I! 



In these words, ten years after the 
people had repudiated him and his poli- 
cies at the polls, Mr. Bryan announces his 
unchanged attitude. 

Much light is thrown upon the mean- 
ing of the expression n [ j am more radical 
than I was in 1 896 and have nothing to 
withdraw on economic questions which 
have been under discussion" by referring 
to his candid warning to the electorate 
prior to the national election in 1 896, 
when he said at Knoxville, Tenn.: — 

"If there is any one who believes 
that the gold standard is a good 

25 



thing or that it must be maintained, 
I warn him not to cast his vote for 
me, because I promise him that it 
will not be maintained in this country 
longer than I am able to get rid 
of it." 

Mr. Bryan's declaration of an unaltered 
mind and purpose upon governmental poli- 
cies covers his position upon the currency 
as well as that upon the coinage. As to 
the one he was and is a Greenbacker. As 
to the other he was and is favorable to the 
free and unlimited coinage of silver upon 
the basis of 1 6ito 1 of gold. This dec- 
laration likewise covers his position upon 
the protective tariff which he has denounced 
as "the most vicious political principle that 
has ever cursed this country," taking great 
pains to point out that the degree of pro- 
tection has nothing to do with his views; 

26 



that not even just so much protection as 
would keep the American wage upon a 
living basis would he concede. It is the 
principle of protecting ourselves for any 
reason by any tariff, however moderate, that 
he assails. "A tariff," he says, "of ten per 
cent, levied purposely for protection, is, as 
far as the principle is concerned, just as 
indefensible as a tariff of a thousand per 
cent." 

Need I comment upon the monstrous 
national folly it would be to impose upon 
a man holding such views the duties of 
an administration during which our tariff 
laws are to be revised? Inevitably, if he 
were true to his oft avowed principles, he 
would use his power and place to abolish 
all protective duties at once and thereby 
precipitate panic and distress, otherwise he 
would temporize with what he calls a 
vicious principle that curses his country. 

27 



Before referring to the new and addi- 
tional economic heresies embraced by Mr. 
Bryan for the purposes of this campaign 
let me give you another view of Bryan 
and Bryanism from another of his supporters. 

The New York World, in an article 
on the "Development of Bryanism, Democ- 
racy, Populism and Socialism," published 
as an address to Mr. Bryan, last February, 
said : — 

"No review of your leadership of the 
Democratic party would be just or adequate, 
Mr. Bryan, which did not uncover the 
sources of your political policies and prin- 
ciples. 

"Your first notable appearance in public 
life was in 1 890, when you were elected 
to Congress from Nebraska in the popular 
uprising against the McKinley tariff. At 
that time, we believe, you were an ardent 
free trader, and you were also a believer 

28 



in the free and unlimited coinage of silver 
at the ratio of 1 6 to 1 , which was then 
more or less of an academic issue in spite 
of a growing agitation. 

"We find that the Populist national 
platform of the year 1 892, when you voted 
the Weaver ticket, defined the following 
articles of faith: — 

"(1) Government ownership and 
operation of all railroads. 

"(2) The free and unlimited coin- 
age of silver at the ratio of 1 6 to 1 . 

"(3) Inflation of greenback circu- 
lation. 

"(4) Government ownership and 
operation of all telegraph and tele- 
phone lines. 

"(5) Restriction of immigration. 

"(6) The initiative and referen- 
dum. 

29 



"(7) The election of United 
States Senators by direct vote of the 
people. 

"This platform also expressed the belief 
that the nation had been 'brought to the 
verge of moral, political, and material ruin; 1 
that legislatures, Congresses, and courts were 
corrupt; that the press was subsidized; that 
there were only two classes in the country, 
tramps and millionaires, and that both the 
old parties were keeping up a fictitious 
hostility in order to hoodwink the people 
for the profit of the money changers. 

"The political alliance which you 
helped to form that year in Nebraska has 
since been made permanent, the Populists 
supplying the platform in each campaign 
and the Democrats the votes." 

"In 1897 the Democrats condemned 
United States judges who interfered with 

30 



lawless strikers. In 1 898 they demanded 
the abolition of banks of issue and the 
prohibition of private contracts for the pay- 
ment of gold. In 1 899 they indorsed 
everything contained in the Populistic plat- 
form of 1 892 and the Democratic-Popu- 
listic platforms of 1896. In 1900 they 
reaffirmed all that had gone before, added 
a denunciation of Government by injunc- 
tion, and favored municipal ownership and 
the referendum. 

"In 1907 they made a new assault 
on the Federal Courts under pretense of 
defending State rights. As you drafted 
that plank, Mr. Bryan, you will doubtless 
thank us for reproducing it. 

"Believing with Jefferson in f the sup- 
port of the State governments in all their 
rights and the most competent administra- 
tions for our domestic concerns as the 
surest bulwark against anti-Republican ten- 



si 



dencies, 1 and in 'the preservation of the 
Federal Government in its whole constitu- 
tional vigor as the sheet anchor of our 
peace at home and safety abroad, 1 we are 
opposed to the centralization implied in 
the suggestions now frequently made that 
the powers of the General Government 
should be extended by judicial construc- 
tion. While we favor the exercise by the 
General Government of all its constitu- 
tional authority for the prevention of mon- 
opoly and the regulation of interstate 
commerce, we insist that Federal remedies 
shall be added to and not substituted for 
State remedies." 

"Stripped of its verbiage, this means 
neither more nor less than that when a 
State legislature has passed a railroad-rate 
law the Federal courts must not suspend the 
act by writs of injunction preparatory to 
determining whether or not the statute is 

32 



in conflict with the Constitution of the 
United States. Thus your new State rights, 
Mr. Bryan, is really your old 'government 
by injunction' issue under an alias." 

n A man of your ability and address, 
Mr. Bryan, cannot forever assail constitu- 
tions, courts, law, wealth, property, credit, 
national honor, and private faith without 
building up a following which will have 
to be reckoned with some time. He can 
not forever inflame social discontent with- 
out creating class hatreds and sowing the 
seeds of a class war." 

"If you, Mr. Bryan, and the Chicago 
Convention had been right, your overthrow 
at the polls in November, 1 896, should 
have been followed by continued depres- 
sion and disaster. You foretold them both." 

"As a matter of fact, the votes by 
which you were condemned had hardly 
been counted when there were signs of 

33 



business revival, and in an incredibly short 
space of time the change for the better 
had become so pronounced that complaint 
practically ceased, agitation was abandoned, 
and the sporadic orator of calamity was 
greeted with derision. !f 

"Never before in the history of the 
world was there so sudden and so com- 
plete a restoration of confidence and a 
revival of industry and commerce. Never 
before was there so convincing a demon- 
stration of the truth, long known, that the 
surest way to destroy prosperity is to 
debase the currency, and the most certain 
way to restore it under such circumstances 
is to take a firm stand in favor of the 
best money known to men." 

"You and your associates gave your 
followers to understand that the United 
States courts were prejudiced in behalf of 
the rich and powerful— were, in fact, con- 

34 



trolled by trusts and corporations— and 
were deaf to the welfare of the people as 
a whole. Not only have you appealed to 
mob passion against Federal courts of jus- 
tice and threatened to pack the Supreme 
Court, but you have persistently advocated 
short terms and popular elections for United 
States judges in order to make them crea- 
tures of popular clamor. We have, there- 
fore, thought proper to indicate here, as 
briefly as possible, important cases arising 
since 1 896 in which proceedings have 
been begun or judgment has been entered 
against the very interests which you charged 
were privileged." 

"The list is instructive in many ways, 
but in none is it more so than in its 
complete refutation of the slanders of 
socialistic demagogism." 

"In 1898 the Supreme Court of the 
United States reversed the circuit court, 

35 



southern district of New York, and the 
circuit court of appeals, and enjoined the 
Joint Traffic Association from violating the 
anti-trust law. Thirty-one railroad com- 
panies engaged in transportation between 
Chicago and the Atlantic coast had 
formed themselves into an association to 
control competitive traffic and fix rates. 
By the action of the court it was dis- 
solved." 

"In 1 899 the Supreme Court sustained 
the circuit court of appeals, sixth circuit, 
in the matter of an injunction restraining 
the operations of the cast-iron pipe trust, 
which attempted to increase the price of 
cast-iron pipe by controlling and parcel- 
ling out the manufacture and sale thereof 
throughout the several States and Terri- 
tories to the several companies forming the 
combination. This is known as the Addy- 
stone Pipe case, and it stands as a prec- 

36 



edent in all similar proceedings against 
trusts." 

"In 1 900 the Supreme Court decided 
that the inheritance- tax law of 1 898 was 
constitutional. Under this act a legacy to 
a husband or wife was exempt. Legacies 
to others paid a tax, which increased as 
the degree of kinship was more remote, 
until property passing to strangers in blood 
paid 5 per cent. To this initial rate a 
progressive rate according to the value of 
the legacy was applied. Property valued 
at $ 1 0,000 or under was exempt. 
Exceeding $ 1 0,000, but not exceeding 
$25,000 the rate was fixed by kin- 
ship. The rate increased with the amount, 
until property exceeding $1,000,000 
was required to pay the rate fixed by 
kinship multiplied by three. This law 
was afterwards repealed by Congress, but 
the court has established the principle 

37 



of a graduated inheritance tax for all 
time." 

"In 1900 the Supreme Court sustained 
the constitutionality of the anti-trust law of 
Texas, one of the most drastic yet adopted 
by any of the States. State prosecutions 
of trusts in Texas have been frequent and 
determined." 

"In 1901 the Supreme Court, in the 
insular cases, held that the President and 
his Cabinet officers could not constitution- 
ally govern and make rules and regulations 
for the Philippines and Porto Rico in time 
of peace, that power belonging to Con- 
gress. These decisions checked a tendency 
on the part of the Executive to estab- 
lish military government in our dependen- 
cies." 

"In 1904 the Supreme Court, having 
the cases against the beef trust before it, 
decided : — " 

38 



" ( 1 .) Traffic in live stock transported 
from State to State is interstate commerce, 
and persons engaged in buying and selling 
such live stock are engaged in interstate 
commerce ;" 

"(2.) the combination between dealers 
to suppress all competition in the purchase 
of live stock is an unlawful restraint of 
trade ; n 

"(3.) the combination between dealers 
to fix and maintain a uniform price in the 
sale of meat throughout the country is an 
unlawful restraint of trade;" 

" (4.) the combination of dealers to 
obtain preferential railroad rates is an 
unlawful restraint of trade, and" 

"(5.) all combinations suppressing com- 
petition fall under the prohibition of the 
Sherman anti-trust act." 

"On the general principles outlined in 
this great judgment the numerous prosecu- 

39 



tions of the beef trust and other combines 
are now proceeding, although we admit, 
alas, too slowly." 

"In 1904 the Supreme Court affirmed 
the decree of the circuit court, Minnesota, 
enjoining the Northern Securities Company 
from purchasing, acquiring, receiving, hold- 
ing, voting, or in any manner acting as 
the owner of any of the shares of stock 
of the Northern Pacific and Great North- 
ern Railway Companies, and restraining 
the Northern Securities Company from 
exercising any control over the corporate 
acts of said companies. It was held that 
the Securities Company was formed for 
the purpose of acquiring a majority of the 
stock of the two companies in order to 
effect practically a consolidation by control- 
ling rates and restricting and destroying 
competition in violation of the Sherman 
anti-trust law." 

40 



"In 1905 the Supreme Court affirmed a 
decree of the circuit court, northern Illi- 
nois, enjoining various great packers in Chi- 
cago, commonly known as the ! beef trust,' 
from carrying out an unlawful conspiracy 
entered in between themselves and certain 
railway companies to suppress competition 
and to create a monopoly in the purchase 
of live stock and the sale of dressed meats. 
This injunction is perpetual. On an indict- 
ment of these packers for continued viola- 
tion of law the individuals were dismissed 
on the ground that they had been granted 
immunity by giving information to the De- 
partment of Commerce and Labor, but the 
indictments against the corporations were 
sustained." 

"In 1 906 the Supreme Court affirmed 
various judgments of United States Courts 
in Wisconsin and Minnesota against the 
General Paper Company, which had been 



41 



proceeded against as a trust. After more 
than two years of litigation the combina- 
tion was, by the decision of the Supreme 
Court, finally dissolved." 

"In 1906 the Supreme Court decided 
the celebrated Chicago street railway fran- 
chise case in favor of the city and against 
the traction trust. By bribery and trickery 
the street railway companies had attempted 
in 1865 to secure from the Legislature a 
franchise extension of more than one hun- 
dred years, but the law was carelessly 
drawn, and although it had been sus- 
tained below, the Supreme Court held it 
to be invalid, thus depriving the corpora- 
tions of so-called 'rights 1 in the streets 
which had been capitalized at more than 

$100,000,000." 

" The notable decisions of the Supreme 
Court of the United States mentioned 
above having established the constitution- 

42 



ality of the laws most frequently invoked 
against combinations and mergers in restraint 
of trade, a great number of prosecutions have 
been begun in the inferior United States 
courts, nearly all of which are still pending." 

" In many other cases indictments have 
been found and the guilty corporations 
convicted and punished." 

This is the condemnation passed upon 
the policies and views of Mr. Bryan by 
that organ of Democratic principles, the 
New York World. 

Now, my fellow citizens, appealing 
solely to your cold judgment, can you find 
it possible to support a man contending for 
such policies and holding such views? 

Would you trust a man to revise a 
protective tariff who is opposed to protec- 
tion? Would you trust a man to maintain 
the gold standard, the bottom rock of our 
national credit, who has declared his aver- 

43 



sion to it? Would you trust a man in the 
world's greatest seat of power whose mixed 
and fanciful notions of political economy 
excite the humor of his opponents and the 
derision of his friends? 

Would you trust a man to recast the 
personnel of the Supreme Court of the 
United States who has "appealed to mob 
passion against Federal Courts of Justice 
and threatened to pack the Supreme Court 
in the supposed interest of any class of 
citizens?" 

Mr. Gompers, assuming to speak for or- 
ganized labor, has recently made a violent 
and sweeping attack upon the entire judi- 
ciary of the country, an attack couched in 
such terms as to include the most upright, 
honest and broad-minded judges no less than 
those of narrower mind and more restricted 
outlook. Mr. Gompers claimed that the 
convention which nominated Mr. Bryan, 

44 



speaking for one of the two great political 
parties, pledged that party to grant the ex- 
treme demands made by him and his fel- 
lows in the matter of injunctions in labor 
cases. Last year, before the House Com- 
mittee on the judiciary, Mr. Gompers and 
his associates clearly formulated these de- 
mands, specifying the bill that contained 
them, refusing all compromise, stating they 
wished the principle of that bill or nothing. 
The principle of the bill was simply 
insisting on a provision that in labor 
disputes no injunction should issue except 
to protect a property right, and specifically 
providing that the right to carry on busi- 
ness of any particular kind or at any par- 
ticular place or at all should not be held 
to be a property right. In its second provi- 
sion it made legal in a labor dispute any 
act or agreement by or between two or 
more persons that would not have been 

45 



unlawful if done by a single person. In 
other words this bill legalized blacklisting 
and boycotting in every form, legalizing, for 
instance, those forms of the secondary boy- 
cott which the Anthracite Coal Commis- 
sion so unreservedly condemned; while the 
right to carry on a business was explicitly 
taken out from under that protection which 
the law throws over property. These are 
the provisions to which Mr. Bryan, according 
to Mr. Gompers, is specifically committed. 
No accusation against Mr. Bryan's character 
by his foes could be as grave as this ac- 
cusation against him by one of his chief 
supporters. We have a right to ask Mr. 
Bryan if the statement of Mr. Gompers is 
true. If it is not, then the support of those 
labor men who are deluded into following 
Mr. Gompers in his support of Mr. Bryan 
has been obtained under false pretenses. 
If, on the other hand, the statememt is true, 

46 



then Mr. Bryan stands pledged to a course 
of policy which represents the enthrone- 
ment of class privilege in its crudest and 
most brutal form, and the destruction of 
one of the most essential functions of the 
judiciary in all civilized lands. 

It is a matter for serious regret that 
men will continue to deceive their fellows 
by promises to accomplish the impossible 
and by assurances that one class of the 
people can or should receive special privi- 
leges under the law not accorded to all. 

The greatest enemy of all classes of 
the American people is the man who 
teaches that the people are or can be 
classified for any purposes of government, 
or the man who denounces the institutions 
of his country, which were established by 
the people, and inspires discontent with 
fundamental and necessary provisions they 
have made for their government. 

47 



The American people have more 
nearly perfected a representative govern- 
ment than any people of any age. They 
drew for their material upon the experience 
of the ages. They rejected tyranny in all 
its guises and forms and worked out a 
system that has challenged the admiration 
and respect of the world. They estab- 
lished a Congress to make the laws, pro- 
vided for a President and subordinate 
executive officers to enforce the laws and 
Courts to interpret the laws and administer 
justice between man and man. 

Each one of these instrumentalities is 
supreme within its sphere and, except 
where expressly provided in the Constitu- 
tion, independent of the other. It is just as 
impossible, except by constitutional amend- 
ment, to change, abridge or enlarge these 
powers as it is to change anything else the 
people have ordained in their Constitution. 

48 



It is not possible because Congress 
enacts a foolish or vicious law within its 
constitutional powers to take away from 
Congress by legislation any of its legisla- 
tive powers. It is not possible because a 
President is guilty of an indiscretion, or 
worse, to strip the Presidential office by 
legislation of a part of its executive 
powers. It is just as impossible because 
some judge unwisely or viciously abuses 
his discretion to take away from the courts 
by legislation any of the judicial power 
lodged in them by the Constitution. 

The courts are an integral and vital 
part of our Government as they are of 
every Government. The administration of 
justice is an essential governmental function. 
In our system the courts are the balance 
wheel and check between contending pas- 
sions and policies. They are the guardians 
of the peoples' rights and liberties. Pub- 

49 



lie sentiment and conviction should loyally 
support the judicial power, recognize the 
patriotism and good faith of the courts and 
maintain their authority and independence. 
The most certain way to prevent their func- 
tions from being degraded and weakened 
is to keep the courts out of politics and 
the politicians out of the courts. 

Demagogues and agitators who seek 
power and responsibility for which they 
are not fitted attack the institutions of gov- 
ernment without discrimination. Some- 
times it is Congress; sometimes the 
Executive; sometimes the Courts; but at 
all times the attack is made in the name 
of reform. 

True reforms are but the expression of 
advancing civilization. They are gradual 
and general in their movements; they are 
consistent with, reconcilable to and de- 
pendent upon the normal operations of gov- 

50 



ernments through which their benefits are 
secured to the people. 

There is a vast distinction between 
agitation and reform and one of the tests 
of that distinction lies in the methods re- 
sorted to for their promulgation. Reform 
is supported by reason, agitation by denun- 
ciation. Reform is an expression of the 
spirit of the people, agitation generally ex- 
presses the ambition of the incompetent 
v and uncandid. 

I have left myself but little time to 
consider the additional "weaknesses and 
absurdities" of Mr. Bryan's political creed 
as proclaimed by the Democratic platform 
and own his recent letters and speeches. 
One would think that enough had been 
discovered by his Democratic newspaper 
friends to demonstrate his entire unsound- 
ness and unfitness for the great place to 
which he has so long aspired. I do, how- 

51 



ever, wish to say a word about his pro- 
posal to guarantee bank deposits, compared 
with which government ownership of rail- 
roads, inflation of greenback circulation, 
coinage of silver at the ratio of 1 6 to 1 , 
and the initiative and referendum look like 
statesmanship. 

The proposition, in plain understand- 
able English, is this: If a national bank 
in any part of the United States fails to 
pay its depositors on demand, all the other 
national banks of the United States must 
contribute to do so. In other words, if 
some Cassie Chadwick hypnotises the 
banking fraternity of some section of the 
country and borrows from them on false 
jewels and false and mysterious represen- 
tations of plutocratic connections all the 
money the banks have borrowed from the 
people, and she neglects to return it to 
the banks and thus disables them from re- 

52 






turning it to their depositors, then the wiser 
bankers of this and other cities who do 
not lend on that kind of collateral must 
take the money they have borrowed from 
you and me as deposits and pay it over 
to the Chadwick victims who had been 
trusted as safe bankers. 

The proposition is improperly named. 
It should be promoted as a scheme to 
insure people against the necessity of using 
ordinary precaution in selecting places 
wherein to deposit their funds, and to fix 
the losses of dishonest and incompetent 
banking upon those who had nothing to 
do with trusting the dishonest or incom- 
petent banker for the relief of those who 

did. 

This reverses the rule of common sense 
as well as of law that where a loss must 
fall upon one of two innocent people or 
classes of people it must be borne by the 

53 



one through whose act, though an inno- 
cent one, the loss came. 

What are bank deposits ? They are 
sums of money that the depositor lends to 
his banker and which his banker agrees to 
repay to him on demand unless there is 
some contract for notice. There is not a 
particle of difference in law between a 
deposit with a banker and a loan to an 
individual. Of course it is claimed that 
there is a difference and I was severely 
criticised in some sections for disclosing 
this view in the Senate last Winter, but 
this criticism was politics. Some editors 
and orators say the peoples' deposits be- 
long to the people because that sounds 
well. 

The law, however, says they are loans 
by the people to the bankers and create 
the relation of debtor and creditor between 
the bank and the depositor and it is upon 

54 



this theory that the affairs of insolvent 
banks are settled. No man can walk into 
a suspended bank and lay his hand on a 
note and say, that is mine, I deposited it. 
All he can do is to present his claim for 
his deposit to the receiver and he will get 
his pro rata of the assets with other 
creditors of his class. If this indisputable 
truth were more generally remembered, it 
might make people a little more careful in 
selecting the bank to which they loan 
money. 

Now it is proposed that this private 
contract between banker A and depositor 
B shall be guaranteed by others who had 
no hand in making it, no voice in con- 
trolling the use of the money, and no 
responsibility for or check upon the dishon- 
esty or incompetency which caused its loss. 

Upon what basis of sense or morals, 
to say nothing of constitutionality, does 

55 



such a proposition rest; and why if bankers 
are compelled by law to pay other bankers' 
debts should we stop there and not require 
all other classes of business to guarantee 
the debts of the members of their class? 

Is there anything particularly sacred 
about the surplus money a man accumu- 
lates and deposits with his banker? It 
stands upon no higher ground than the 
claim of the mill worker who has given 
his labor, his all, not his surplus, to the 
mill owner who fails to pay him, and 
yet I hear of no suggestion to compel the 
mill owners to guarantee each other's pay 
rolls. 

Does it stand upon any higher ground 
than the debt due to the widow and the 
orphan by an insolvent insurance company 
to which for years annual premiums have 
been paid pinched out of an all too 
slender income by self denial and sacrifice 

56 



to provide against inevitable loss? Yet 
I have heard of no proposition to make 
insurance companies guarantee each other's 
policies. 

Is the right to receive back money you 
have loaned a matter of greater govern- 
mental concern than the hope of the 
farmer to harvest the crop that he has 
planted and cultivated and expectantly 
watched ? Yet I have heard of no sug- 
gestion that the farmers be compelled by 
law to guarantee each other's crops. So 
you may run through the whole range of 
human activities and we find no effort to 
compel a class to guarantee or insure 
the contracts and just expectations of its 
members. 

If depositors of any particular section 
feel that they need protection against their 
own ability to discriminate between safe 
and unsafe banks, I recommend to them the 

57 



example of the labor unions and other 
mutual protective organizations. If bankers 
should feel at any time, as they do not 
now, that a mutual guarantee of each other's 
debts promoted their interests you may de- 
pend upon it they would accomplish their 
purpose without legal compulsion. 

I am not unkindly disposed towards 
Mr. Bryan. His personality is engaging, 
his industry is prodigious, his talents are 
remarkable, but his statesmanship is hope- 
less. By his high ambition he has chal- 
lenged fair and intelligent criticism of 
what he is, what he believes and of his 
capabilities and qualifications for the Presi- 
dency. It is difficult to moderately express 
the objections to his policies, and his own 
friends and supporters have not restrained 
themselves in this particular. I refrain 
from further comment upon him as a can- 
didate except to quote the language of the 

58 



prophet Hosea who said, " Ephraim is 
joined to idols; let him alone." 

I conclude as I began by urging you 
to fully consider the import of what you 
are about to do. The issues of this Cam- 
paign present a great opportunity for the 
people of Pennsylvania to give fresh proof 
of their patriotism, intelligence and loyalty 
to the great party of Lincoln, Grant, 
McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft. Locally 
let us indorse the splendid administration 
of Governor Stuart, return to Congress 
the party's nominees and elect a legislature 
that will keep in the Senate my modest 
colleague who, manfully ignoring unjust 
criticism, has by his arduous, useful and 
devoted service to the Nation and the 
State won for himself the hearty good- 
will, admiration and respect of right think- 
ing men. 



59 



/ 



IS 






r^< 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



029 827 416 4 



m 


r . 
■ > 




I 


V 


w 


Jk^= 


^s 


/*V 






A . 


L> 


:] i 


1 


1 






*a 






/.'--• 






-vV 









|f£g 



*** 



">-^ 


^ >^: ^ 




13 


P« 


? 


fcAc ! 


'^ 


'-TT 


VW 


**fe- 



3? 



^^: 



iASfei 



